Coffey and Australian Postal Corporation - [2005] AATA 597

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 597
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2002/1000

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
)

Re ROSLYN ANNE COFFEY

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms MJ Carstairs, Member
Date 23 June 2005
Place Brisbane

Decision
The reviewable decision dated 6 November 2002 is set aside in part. The Tribunal substitutes the decision that the respondent is liable to pay compensation for soft tissue injuries to the applicant’s cervical and thoracic spine (the ‘injuries’) sustained on 4 May 1999. Under s16 and s19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”), the applicant is entitled, respectively:

(a)      to the cost of any reasonable medical treatment for the injuries; and

(b)      to incapacity payments for the period from 4 May 1999 until            10 September 1999, that is, the date when the applicant’s injuries            resolved.

In all other respects the reviewable decision dated 6 November 2002 is affirmed.

The respondent is liable under s67(8) of the Act to pay the applicant’s costs of the application as it relates to the injuries.

.................[Sgd]........................
MJ Carstairs
  Member

COMPENSATION – motorcycle accident in course of employment – delay in claim - whether applicant suffered soft tissue injuries to the cervical and thoracic spine – whether the respondent now liable for compensation for the injuries – decision under review set aside
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 17, 53, 67(8)
Oudyn v Australian Postal Corporation (2003) 73 ALD 659
Re Lui and Comcare [2004] AATA 617
Plumb v Comcare (1992) 39 FCR 236
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
Elleissy v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1989) 18 ALD 240
McAuliffe v Comcare [2002] FCA 769
Tubemakers of Australia v Fernandez (1976) 50 ALJR 720
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries [1939] 3 All ER 722
REASONS FOR DECISION

23 June 2005 Ms MJ Carstairs, Member

1.      This is an application by Roslyn Anne Coffey (the applicant) for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Australian Postal Corporation (the respondent) and affirmed on internal review, denying liability for injury to the applicant’s cervical and thoracic spine as a result of a motorcycle accident in May 1999.
2.      At the hearing the applicant was represented by Mr D Rangiah of counsel instructed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Mr G Handran of counsel instructed by Clarke & Kann Solicitors.
3. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged under s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 numbered T1-T190 as well as exhibits marked A1-A5 for the applicant and R1-R10 for the respondent.   Responses to written submissions were filed by 4 May 2005.
BACKGROUND
4.      The applicant is aged fifty one years.   In 1996, she commenced employment with Australia Post as a postal delivery officer at Caboolture Mail Centre. On 4 May 1999, she was injured in the course of her duties when she fell from her motorcycle in a single vehicle accident when…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coffey and Australian Postal Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] AATA 597
Decision Date: 23 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coffey lodged an application for compensation against the Australian Postal Corporation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, following a motorcycle accident that occurred during his employment on 4 May 1999. The application was contested by the Corporation, which denied liability for compensation. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which found in favour of the Corporation, rejecting the claim. Coffey sought a review of this decision by the Federal Court. The key issues for the court were whether Coffey suffered soft tissue injuries to his cervical and thoracic spine as a result of the accident, and if so, whether the Corporation was liable for compensation for those injuries.

The court considered the evidence and found that Coffey had indeed suffered soft tissue injuries to his cervical and thoracic spine, contrary to the Tribunal's finding. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the evidence regarding the extent of Coffey's injuries. The court also noted that there was no evidence that Coffey had been previously diagnosed with or treated for any condition in his cervical or thoracic spine prior to the accident. Based on this finding, the court concluded that the Corporation was liable for compensation under the Act for the injuries sustained by Coffey.

The Federal Court set aside the decision of the Tribunal in part and substituted a decision that the Corporation was liable for compensation for the injuries sustained by Coffey. The court ordered that the Corporation pay Coffey the cost of any reasonable medical treatment for the injuries and incapacity payments for the period from 4 May 1999 until 10 September 1999, when the injuries resolved. The Corporation was also ordered to pay Coffey's costs of the application as it related to the injuries. The decision of the Tribunal in all other respects was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The reviewable decision dated 6 November 2002 is set aside in part. The Tribunal substitutes the decision that the respondent is liable to pay compensation for soft tissue injuries to the applicant’s cervical and thoracic spine (the ‘injuries’) sustained on 4 May 1999. Under s16 and s19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”), the applicant is entitled, respectively:

(a) to the cost of any reasonable medical treatment for the injuries; and

(b) to incapacity payments for the period from 4 May 1999 until 10 September 1999, that is, the date when the applicant’s injuries resolved.

In all other respects the reviewable decision dated 6 November 2002 is affirmed.

The respondent is liable under s67(8) of the Act to pay the applicant’s costs of the application as it relates to the injuries.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ROSLYN ANNE COFFEY